CIVIL PROCEDURE
FINK – FALL 2008
Outline
I. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Types of Personal Jurisdiction
1.In Personam
i. jurisdiction over Δ and/or his property
ii. binding against Δ only
2.In Rem
i. jurisdiction over a particular piece of Δ property
ii. power to adjudicate rights of all persons in the world over particular property
3.Quasi in Rem
i. jurisdiction over particular individuals with respect to specific property
B. Bases for Jurisdiction
1.Presence / Personal Service inside the forum state
2.Domicile
3.Agency
4.Consent
i. Expressed
ii. Implied
C. When There are not Traditional Bases of Jurisdiction
1.Long-Arm Statutes
i. Enumerated Act Model
a. Reasons for limiting jurisdiction
1) Historical: first long arm statute used enumerated act model
2) Resistance: many courts are reluctant to change what has worked for so many years
3) Guidance: list of acts provides some guidance to non-residents about the jurisdictional consequences of their acts.
4) Discretion: judges may not want to confer jurisdiction to a case that barely passes jurisdictional muster
b. Require that the claim sued upon rise of the act itself
c. When a long arm statute may be constitutional only in some cases, the courts will not invalidate the statute entirely; they will just refuse to hear cases where it is unconstitutional
ii. Allow Fullest Jurisdiction Under the Article II of the Constitution
2.Minimum Contacts
i. Diagram:
Contacts
Related – Specific
Unrelated –General
Systematic and Continuous
Yes
Probably
Simple and Sporadic
Yes
No
ii. Definitions:
a. Specific Jurisdiction: where defendants contacts give rise to the liabilities sued on
b. General Jurisdiction: suits involving only unrelated forum state contacts
iii. Applies to:
a. Time Δ acted, not time of suit
b
ns of its laws
a. Through Direct Commerce
1) Δ ‘s product is in the state but Δ does not sell, advertise or otherwise conduct business within the state
a) Not enough to constitute purposeful availment
2) Δ’s product is in the state AND Δ sells, advertises and conducts business in the state
a) Is enough to constitute purposeful availment
b. Through “Stream of Commerce”
1) A good enters the stream of commerce two ways:
a) Δ sells a component to a manufacturer outside the forum state, then manufacturer sells finished product in the forum state
b) Δ sells finished good to a wholesaler outside the forum state, then wholesaler sells finished good within the forum state
2) Court is split:
a) O’Connor Opinion:
1) premise of “mere awareness” that good will end up in forum state does not qualify
2) to qualify: O’Connor would require clear evidence that Δ intended the component to end up in Forum State, i.e. specific design
b) Concurring Opinion
Sending goods in substantial quantities into stream of commerce whether or not manufacturer knows where the goods will end up qualifies
